Re: UP vs South India during 1857

by Kris Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:02 am

Looks like many of us are in agreement that 1857 is just a mutiny for petty reasons

>>>>Quite likely, although the pettiness is a matter of our perspective-- it may not have been that from the local rulers' perspective. Did they have a sense of pan-indian nationalism? Very likely not, but they probably did have the sense the Europeans were more foreign than other indians. At least religion and rituals tied them to other indians. Even muslims were not foreign to them due to the presence of the religion in the area for several centuries.

Next time if someone says South or East or any region did not participate in 1857 feel glad that they did not participate for restoring the rule of Mughals/Marathas/Ranis and Begums and proudly associate with the Madras regiment and Punjabi Sikhs who sided with the Brits to put down jihadis and assorted folks.

>>>>I won't dispute that the way things have turned out for india is the best of all possbile outcomes, even though that may not been the brits' intent. IMO, the modern idea of a national indian identity in a political sense was forged in no small part during the independence struggle. It would have been very difficult to dust up the old idea of bharatavarsha(?) and bring it up to speed to make it all inclusive in the mid 19th/20th century- actually, almost impossible. The brits as a common enemy was a much simpler short cut. The brits also left behind an infrastructure and framework of governance which would have been far less developed in 1857, had they been kicked out then. Restored monarchies or muslim rule would have actually been destructive to the development of india. Anway, all the being said, I am willing to give historians somewhat of a wide berth on this 'national rising' against the brits bit, since this sort of license comes with the territory i.e. reinvention of the past. Societies engage in this type of self-narrative of themselves all the time ('Washington never told a lie','The white man's burden' etc). Indians are no exception.

by Ponniyin Selvan Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:07 am

Anway, all the being said, I am willing to give historians somewhat of a wide berth on this 'national rising' against the brits bit, since this sort of license comes with the territory i.e. reinvention of the past. Societies engage in this type of self-narrative of themselves all the time ('Washington never told a lie','The white man's burden' etc). Indians are no exception.

Actually, rewriting history does more harm than good. In this example, It gives some folks a false sense of pride in the petty mutiny of 1857 called wrongly as the first war of independence giving them a stick to beat folks from other regions like the South and the Punjabi Sikhs who actually sided with the British.

It was not a fight for universal human rights or suffrage rather a medieval fight for taking control of land and resources. I think it is better we get to know the real facts and not rely on falsehood to portray an imaginary "nationalism".

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:40 am

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:Anway, all the being said, I am willing to give historians somewhat of a wide berth on this 'national rising' against the brits bit, since this sort of license comes with the territory i.e. reinvention of the past. Societies engage in this type of self-narrative of themselves all the time ('Washington never told a lie','The white man's burden' etc). Indians are no exception.

Actually, rewriting history does more harm than good. In this example, It gives some folks a false sense of pride in the petty mutiny of 1857 called wrongly as the first war of independence giving them a stick to beat folks from other regions like the South and the Punjabi Sikhs who actually sided with the British.

It was not a fight for universal human rights or suffrage rather a medieval fight for taking control of land and resources. I think it is better we get to know the real facts and not rely on falsehood to portray an imaginary "nationalism".

it was a fight to prevent India from becoming a colony of the British (and subsequently being subjected to rapacious economic policies). It was not just South Indian rulers like the Nizam and Nawab of Arcot who preferred to side with the British but also rulers in many northern states. For instance, the native rulers in Madhya Pradesh.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:36 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i find it interesting that the most consequential freedom fighters from TN were neither to-the-manor-born folks like nehru or minor rajas or nawabs, but english educated middle class government officials and lawyers (these folks used to be called pleaders) who eventually turned against the british -- folks like v.o.chidambaram pillai, v.v.s.iyer, vanchinathan, and subramanya bharathi.

the rajas of UP certainly participated in the 1857 independence struggle. but they were not around in the freedom struggle in the the 20th century since they had been wiped out during 1857-1859. Nehru's father was a top lawyer who had earned all his money himself(i.e. he was not any landlord with inherited wealth), as was Nehru himself for a brief period. In fact the vast majority of all the freedom fighters from U.P. during the early 20th century leading upto 1947 were lawyers.

by Kris Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:03 pm

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:Anway, all the being said, I am willing to give historians somewhat of a wide berth on this 'national rising' against the brits bit, since this sort of license comes with the territory i.e. reinvention of the past. Societies engage in this type of self-narrative of themselves all the time ('Washington never told a lie','The white man's burden' etc). Indians are no exception.

Actually, rewriting history does more harm than good. In this example, It gives some folks a false sense of pride in the petty mutiny of 1857 called wrongly as the first war of independence giving them a stick to beat folks from other regions like the South and the Punjabi Sikhs who actually sided with the British.

It was not a fight for universal human rights or suffrage rather a medieval fight for taking control of land and resources. I think it is better we get to know the real facts and not rely on falsehood to portray an imaginary "nationalism".

>>>> In that context, yes that would be bad. Here's my question though: who is giving credence to these chest-thumpers or this issue anyway? With the multitude of problems, this may make for a feel-good movie or two, but I suspect this is a fringe isue at best.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:09 pm

Rashmun wrote:Let me try to summarize your argument:

You did a poor job of "summarizing" my argument.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:11 pm

Rashmun wrote:Maratha rule did extend upto parts of Madhya Pradesh but i do not believe it extended upto Uttar Pradesh.

Maratha Empire in 1760 (yellow), without its vassals.

UP vs South India during 1857 - Page 2 466px-India-1760-map

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:50 pm

Rashmun wrote:Furthermore, i will point out that it would have been a much easier option for Nana Sahib and Tipu Sultan to have started licking British boots like the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot. It would have resulted in a comfortable life.

I am glad that you acknowledge that the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot were licking the boots of the British, and lived comfortable lives in return for that boot-licking. How the mighty have fallen! The fact is, Tipu, Hyder and Nana also collaborated and colluded with foreigners (British, French, etc.) when it suited them and fought them when it didn't.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:05 pm

Interesting map. The Indus belt was ruled by Monomaniac chieftains - not surprising. Telangana - under Nizam? The Tamil and coastal Telugu areas - by East India Company? I thought Bengal was also under gora control (Clive?). Lucknow region - autonomous? Where does Hyder Ali fit in this? Hmm...

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:11 pm

Ok. Didn't see the whole thread before responding to the 1760 map.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:13 pm

Kris wrote:Restored monarchies or muslim rule would have actually been destructive to the development of india.

If the rebellion had succeeded, India would likely have been at least a dozen different nations today, with at least a couple of "world wars" of the European variety by now.

The more fascinating "if" of history for me is what would have happened if the Marathas had won the third Panipat war. They might conceivably have consolidated India under one polity, and ousted the Company from its Bengal diwani won in Palashi just four years before. That would have protected India's economy from destruction, and denied Britain a captive market -- perhaps the industrial revolution would not have occurred in Britain in the early 19th century, without that Indian market. The revolution would likely have occurred in America anyway, perhaps a half century later, but the world would have been a very different place indeed.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:45 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Furthermore, i will point out that it would have been a much easier option for Nana Sahib and Tipu Sultan to have started licking British boots like the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot. It would have resulted in a comfortable life.
I am glad that you acknowledge that the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot were licking the boots of the British, and lived comfortable lives in return for that boot-licking. How the mighty have fallen! The fact is, Tipu, Hyder and Nana also collaborated and colluded with foreigners (British, French, etc.) when it suited them and fought them when it didn't.

The Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot deserve to be condemned for boot licking the British. On the other hand, they need to be appreciated for the fact that they were not communal and attempted to foster harmonious relations between hindus and muslims.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:47 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Interesting map. The Indus belt was ruled by Monomaniac chieftains - not surprising. Telangana - under Nizam? The Tamil and coastal Telugu areas - by East India Company? I thought Bengal was also under gora control (Clive?). Lucknow region - autonomous? Where does Hyder Ali fit in this? Hmm...

By 1760, the company was not yet in control of the south. The region was ruled by the Nizam, the Nawab of Arcot, and a number of other rulers who were descendants of the Vijayanagara nayakas and owed formal allegiance to the Nizam or the Marathas. Hyder Ali came to prominence after the Maratha debacle in Panipat in 1760, when he started pushing back Maratha power. Lucknow was the Awadh kingdom, nominally owing its allegiance to the Mughals in Delhi, but independent in practice. Bengal was similar -- nominally Mughal but with the Clive's company as revenue collectors.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:48 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Maratha rule did extend upto parts of Madhya Pradesh but i do not believe it extended upto Uttar Pradesh.
Maratha Empire in 1760 (yellow), without its vassals.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire

Was the state of Oudh a vassal state of the Marathas?

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:50 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Furthermore, i will point out that it would have been a much easier option for Nana Sahib and Tipu Sultan to have started licking British boots like the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot. It would have resulted in a comfortable life.
I am glad that you acknowledge that the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot were licking the boots of the British, and lived comfortable lives in return for that boot-licking. How the mighty have fallen! The fact is, Tipu, Hyder and Nana also collaborated and colluded with foreigners (British, French, etc.) when it suited them and fought them when it didn't.

The Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot deserve to be condemned for boot licking the British. On the other hand, they need to be appreciated for the fact that they were not communal and attempted to foster harmonious relations between hindus and muslims.

I assume the former should be praised for trying to cut a big hole out of India and for aiding Pakistan when it was at war with India. Do let me know if your position has changed in that regard so I can keep my files updated.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:51 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Let me try to summarize your argument:
You did a poor job of "summarizing" my argument.

No i did not. The main thrust of my argument is that you are making no distinction between rulers who fought against the British (rulers like Tipu Sultan and Hyder Ali) and rulers who preferred to become boot lickers of the British (like the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot). In my opinion this is an error on your part.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:54 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Furthermore, i will point out that it would have been a much easier option for Nana Sahib and Tipu Sultan to have started licking British boots like the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot. It would have resulted in a comfortable life.
I am glad that you acknowledge that the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot were licking the boots of the British, and lived comfortable lives in return for that boot-licking. How the mighty have fallen! The fact is, Tipu, Hyder and Nana also collaborated and colluded with foreigners (British, French, etc.) when it suited them and fought them when it didn't.

The Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot deserve to be condemned for boot licking the British. On the other hand, they need to be appreciated for the fact that they were not communal and attempted to foster harmonious relations between hindus and muslims.
I assume the former should be praised for trying to cut a big hole out of India and for aiding Pakistan when it was at war with India. Do let me know if your position has changed in that regard so I can keep my files updated.

That was much later. At the time of Indian independence the Nizam seems to have lost his head and behaved stupidly in a futile bid to somehow retain power. But we need to study the full history of all the Nizams in the time before the 1940's so as to obtain a correct understanding of their position: they were boot lickers of the british, but they were also not communal and attempted to foster harmonious relations between hindus and muslims.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Maratha rule did extend upto parts of Madhya Pradesh but i do not believe it extended upto Uttar Pradesh.
Maratha Empire in 1760 (yellow), without its vassals.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire

Was the state of Oudh a vassal state of the Marathas?

Not as far as I know. Significant chunks of modern UP were however ruled by the Marathas.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:56 pm

The region in brown corresponds roughly to modern Uttar Pradesh:

UP vs South India during 1857 - Page 2 India_18th_century

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:06 pm

Rashmun wrote:The region in brown corresponds roughly to modern Uttar Pradesh:

That region in brown does not include modern western UP: Agra, Mathura, Meerut and Jhansi are all in the Maratha zone. In fact the entire do-ab region between the Ganga and the Yamuna is shown within Maratha territory here. And the region in brown includes western Bihar -- territories that the Nawab of Awadh ceded to the Company after the battle of Buxar in 1764 (Buxar was well within Awadh then, and it is now on the border between UP and Bihar). In fact, the border of the brown region with the company territory shown here is right at Patna, where the Sone and Gandak rivers meet the Ganga.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:11 pm

This thread is headed to "Gold Star" - meaning 4 pages...

Any bets?

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:12 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The region in brown corresponds roughly to modern Uttar Pradesh:

That region in brown does not include modern western UP: Agra, Mathura, Meerut and Jhansi are all in the Maratha zone. In fact the entire do-ab region between the Ganga and the Yamuna is shown within Maratha territory here. And the region in brown includes western Bihar -- territories that the Nawab of Awadh ceded to the Company after the battle of Buxar in 1764 (Buxar was well within Awadh then, and it is now on the border between UP and Bihar). In fact, the border of the brown region with the company territory shown here is right at Patna, where the Sone and Gandak rivers meet the Ganga.

for the purpose of comparison:

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:18 pm

Thanks Rashmun, as you can see most of today's western UP and UP territory south of the Ganga was ruled by Marathas. You didn't know that Maratha rule extended to UP. I am always happy to educate you about the history of your own state.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:21 pm

panini press wrote:Thanks Rashmun, as you can see most of today's western UP and UP territory south of the Ganga was ruled by Marathas. You didn't know that Maratha rule extended to UP. I am always happy to educate you about the history of your own state.

I had said that the region in brown corresponds 'roughly' to modern U.P.. I used the word 'roughly' (instead of 'precisely' or 'exactly') deliberately. For instance, i well know that modern U.P. includes the Bundelkhand region and the region in brown is not displaying the Bundelkhand region. Presumably you are ignorant about the Bundelkhand region of U.P. as well.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:24 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:Thanks Rashmun, as you can see most of today's western UP and UP territory south of the Ganga was ruled by Marathas. You didn't know that Maratha rule extended to UP. I am always happy to educate you about the history of your own state.

I had said that the region in brown corresponds 'roughly' to modern U.P.. I used the word 'roughly' (instead of 'precisely' or 'exactly') deliberately. For instance, i well know that modern U.P. includes the Bundelkhand region and the region in brown is not displaying the Bundelkhand region. Presumably you are ignorant about the Bundelkhand region of U.P. as well.

You can presume what you want.

Rashmun wrote:Maratha rule did extend upto parts of Madhya Pradesh but i do not believe it extended upto Uttar Pradesh.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:27 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:Thanks Rashmun, as you can see most of today's western UP and UP territory south of the Ganga was ruled by Marathas. You didn't know that Maratha rule extended to UP. I am always happy to educate you about the history of your own state.

I had said that the region in brown corresponds 'roughly' to modern U.P.. I used the word 'roughly' (instead of 'precisely' or 'exactly') deliberately. For instance, i well know that modern U.P. includes the Bundelkhand region and the region in brown is not displaying the Bundelkhand region. Presumably you are ignorant about the Bundelkhand region of U.P. as well.
You can presume what you want.

Rashmun wrote:Maratha rule did extend upto parts of Madhya Pradesh but i do not believe it extended upto Uttar Pradesh.

For the most part, Uttar Pradesh continued to be governed independently by the State of Oudh.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:34 pm

Interestingly, the descendants of the Marathas who ruled parts of Uttar Pradesh still call themselves Marathas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_(Uttar_Pradesh)

The Maratha are an immigrant Hindu caste found in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India. They are descendents of soldiers and administrators who settled in Uttar Pradesh during the period of Maratha rule in the region. Most arrived as part of the army sent by Baji Rao Peshwa. They are found mainly in the districts of Jhansi, Jalaun, Banda, Lalitpur and Kanpur.
...
The Maratha now speak Bundelkhandi and Hindi, although historically spoke Marathi.

Unlike immigrants from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra and Karnataka, it appears that the Marathas of Uttar Pradesh decided to pick up the language of the place they settled in.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:37 pm

panini press wrote:Interestingly, the descendants of the Marathas who ruled parts of Uttar Pradesh still call themselves Marathas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_(Uttar_Pradesh)

The Maratha are an immigrant Hindu caste found in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India. They are descendents of soldiers and administrators who settled in Uttar Pradesh during the period of Maratha rule in the region. Most arrived as part of the army sent by Baji Rao Peshwa. They are found mainly in the districts of Jhansi, Jalaun, Banda, Lalitpur and Kanpur.
...
The Maratha now speak Bundelkhandi and Hindi, although historically spoke Marathi.

Unlike immigrants from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra and Karnataka, it appears that the Marathas of Uttar Pradesh decided to pick up the language of the place they settled in.

Uttar Pradesh is like a large melting pot. Punjabis, Bengalis, Oriyas, etc. have been immigrating to Uttar Pradesh for more than a millienia.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:39 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:Thanks Rashmun, as you can see most of today's western UP and UP territory south of the Ganga was ruled by Marathas. You didn't know that Maratha rule extended to UP. I am always happy to educate you about the history of your own state.

I had said that the region in brown corresponds 'roughly' to modern U.P.. I used the word 'roughly' (instead of 'precisely' or 'exactly') deliberately. For instance, i well know that modern U.P. includes the Bundelkhand region and the region in brown is not displaying the Bundelkhand region. Presumably you are ignorant about the Bundelkhand region of U.P. as well.
You can presume what you want.

Rashmun wrote:Maratha rule did extend upto parts of Madhya Pradesh but i do not believe it extended upto Uttar Pradesh.

For the most part, Uttar Pradesh continued to be governed independently by the State of Oudh.

Yes, northeastern UP was governed by Awadh. In other words, between one-third and one-half of the territory of modern UP was ruled by Marathas.

PS: The spelling Oudh is a British corruption of the name Awadh. It is OK, you no longer have to use British misspellings for Indian names. I suspect even the Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot would have stopped calling it Awadh by now.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 pm

It is interesting also to note that Uttar Pradesh is the place where most traditional hindus prefer their ashes to be dispersed after cremation. Usually in the Ganges (Ganga) at the Sangam where it meets the Yamuna or else in Benaras or at Hardwar/Rishikesh. In other words, it is a sacred land for all hindus.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:41 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:Thanks Rashmun, as you can see most of today's western UP and UP territory south of the Ganga was ruled by Marathas. You didn't know that Maratha rule extended to UP. I am always happy to educate you about the history of your own state.

I had said that the region in brown corresponds 'roughly' to modern U.P.. I used the word 'roughly' (instead of 'precisely' or 'exactly') deliberately. For instance, i well know that modern U.P. includes the Bundelkhand region and the region in brown is not displaying the Bundelkhand region. Presumably you are ignorant about the Bundelkhand region of U.P. as well.
You can presume what you want.

Rashmun wrote:Maratha rule did extend upto parts of Madhya Pradesh but i do not believe it extended upto Uttar Pradesh.

For the most part, Uttar Pradesh continued to be governed independently by the State of Oudh.
Yes, northeastern UP was governed by Awadh. In other words, between one-third and one-half of the territory of modern UP was ruled by Marathas.

PS: The spelling Oudh is a British corruption of the name Awadh. It is OK, you no longer have to use British misspellings for Indian names. I suspect even the Nizams and Nawabs of Arcot would have stopped calling it Awadh by now.

I called it Oudh because it was spelled as Oudh in the map you yourself gave. I well know that Oudh = Awadh, just as Ganges = Ganga. In my opinion you are now nitpicking on trivialities.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:41 pm

Rashmun wrote:It is interesting also to note that Uttar Pradesh is the place where most traditional hindus prefer their ashes to be dispersed after cremation. Usually in the Ganges (Ganga) at the Sangam where it meets the Yamuna or else in Benaras or at Hardwar/Rishikesh. In other words, it is a sacred land for all hindus.

Incidentally, Allahabad is part of the Ganga-Yamuna do-ab that the Marathas ruled Smile

.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:45 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is interesting also to note that Uttar Pradesh is the place where most traditional hindus prefer their ashes to be dispersed after cremation. Usually in the Ganges (Ganga) at the Sangam where it meets the Yamuna or else in Benaras or at Hardwar/Rishikesh. In other words, it is a sacred land for all hindus.
Incidentally, Allahabad is part of the Ganga-Yamuna do-ab that the Marathas ruled .

the wikipedia page on Allahabad says:

The Doaba region, including Allahabad, was controlled by several empires and dynasties in the ages to come.[13] The area became a part of the Mauryan and Gupta empires of the east and the Kushan empire of the west before becoming part of the local Kannauj empire in 15th century.[11] The city was the scene of Maratha incursions before colonial rule was imposed over India.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahabad
-----------------

Might i remind you that 'Maratha incursions' does not mean 'Maratha rule'.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:49 pm

Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is interesting also to note that Uttar Pradesh is the place where most traditional hindus prefer their ashes to be dispersed after cremation. Usually in the Ganges (Ganga) at the Sangam where it meets the Yamuna or else in Benaras or at Hardwar/Rishikesh. In other words, it is a sacred land for all hindus.
Incidentally, Allahabad is part of the Ganga-Yamuna do-ab that the Marathas ruled .

the wikipedia page on Allahabad says:

The Doaba region, including Allahabad, was controlled by several empires and dynasties in the ages to come.[13] The area became a part of the Mauryan and Gupta empires of the east and the Kushan empire of the west before becoming part of the local Kannauj empire in 15th century.[11] The city was the scene of Maratha incursions before colonial rule was imposed over India.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahabad
-----------------

Might i remind you that 'Maratha incursions' does not mean 'Maratha rule'.

Well, do you now believe that Maratha rule "extended upto Uttar Pradesh?" If you do, I am done with my lesson of the day for you. If not, may the Nizam help you find the truth.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:55 pm

panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
panini press wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is interesting also to note that Uttar Pradesh is the place where most traditional hindus prefer their ashes to be dispersed after cremation. Usually in the Ganges (Ganga) at the Sangam where it meets the Yamuna or else in Benaras or at Hardwar/Rishikesh. In other words, it is a sacred land for all hindus.
Incidentally, Allahabad is part of the Ganga-Yamuna do-ab that the Marathas ruled .

the wikipedia page on Allahabad says:

The Doaba region, including Allahabad, was controlled by several empires and dynasties in the ages to come.[13] The area became a part of the Mauryan and Gupta empires of the east and the Kushan empire of the west before becoming part of the local Kannauj empire in 15th century.[11] The city was the scene of Maratha incursions before colonial rule was imposed over India.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahabad
-----------------

Might i remind you that 'Maratha incursions' does not mean 'Maratha rule'.

Well, do you now believe that Maratha rule "extended upto Uttar Pradesh?" If you do, I am done with my lesson of the day for you. If not, may the Nizam help you find the truth.

Marathas did rule over some region of present day U.P. (for instance the bundelkhand region) so thanks for the lesson. In my opinion teaching me a little history is the least you can do after all the philosophy i have taught you. Also, only recently i clarified your confusion with respect to Amartya Sen's ideas on poverty:

https://such.forumotion.com/t8163p100-hindi-film-aradhana-had-created-a-sensation-in-tamil-nadu#61963

by Kris Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:03 pm

panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:Restored monarchies or muslim rule would have actually been destructive to the development of india.
If the rebellion had succeeded, India would likely have been at least a dozen different nations today, with at least a couple of "world wars" of the European variety by now.

The more fascinating "if" of history for me is what would have happened if the Marathas had won the third Panipat war. They might conceivably have consolidated India under one polity, and ousted the Company from its Bengal diwani won in Palashi just four years before. That would have protected India's economy from destruction, and denied Britain a captive market -- perhaps the industrial revolution would not have occurred in Britain in the early 19th century, without that Indian market. The revolution would likely have occurred in America anyway, perhaps a half century later, but the world would have been a very different place indeed.

>>> I hadn't thought about the domino effect with respect to Britain. Even under the above se=ceanrio, in the long run, in terms of global significance, India would have been a regional power, the US a world power and Britain an also ran, which is more or less the story now. This would have been pretty much dictated by geographical size. Yes, technological/industrial evolution would have had a rather different history. India would have also had less of an interaction with the west and the catch-up game would have been shaped up by how enlightened the rulers were.

by Idéfix Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:15 pm

Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:Restored monarchies or muslim rule would have actually been destructive to the development of india.
If the rebellion had succeeded, India would likely have been at least a dozen different nations today, with at least a couple of "world wars" of the European variety by now.

The more fascinating "if" of history for me is what would have happened if the Marathas had won the third Panipat war. They might conceivably have consolidated India under one polity, and ousted the Company from its Bengal diwani won in Palashi just four years before. That would have protected India's economy from destruction, and denied Britain a captive market -- perhaps the industrial revolution would not have occurred in Britain in the early 19th century, without that Indian market. The revolution would likely have occurred in America anyway, perhaps a half century later, but the world would have been a very different place indeed.

>>> I hadn't thought about the domino effect with respect to Britain. Even under the above se=ceanrio, in the long run, in terms of global significance, India would have been a regional power, the US a world power and Britain an also ran, which is more or less the story now. This would have been pretty much dictated by geographical size. Yes, technological/industrial evolution would have had a rather different history. India would have also had less of an interaction with the west and the catch-up game would have been shaped up by how enlightened the rulers were.

I hadn't thought of it that way, but that is true! Europe would have emulated America in an industrial revolution, just like America emulated Europe and Japan emulated Europe. So the eventual configuration for the 21st century may not have looked all that different, as you say.

by Kris Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:48 pm

panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:
panini press wrote:
Kris wrote:Restored monarchies or muslim rule would have actually been destructive to the development of india.
If the rebellion had succeeded, India would likely have been at least a dozen different nations today, with at least a couple of "world wars" of the European variety by now.

The more fascinating "if" of history for me is what would have happened if the Marathas had won the third Panipat war. They might conceivably have consolidated India under one polity, and ousted the Company from its Bengal diwani won in Palashi just four years before. That would have protected India's economy from destruction, and denied Britain a captive market -- perhaps the industrial revolution would not have occurred in Britain in the early 19th century, without that Indian market. The revolution would likely have occurred in America anyway, perhaps a half century later, but the world would have been a very different place indeed.

>>> I hadn't thought about the domino effect with respect to Britain. Even under the above se=ceanrio, in the long run, in terms of global significance, India would have been a regional power, the US a world power and Britain an also ran, which is more or less the story now. This would have been pretty much dictated by geographical size. Yes, technological/industrial evolution would have had a rather different history. India would have also had less of an interaction with the west and the catch-up game would have been shaped up by how enlightened the rulers were.
I hadn't thought of it that way, but that is true! Europe would have emulated America in an industrial revolution, just like America emulated Europe and Japan emulated Europe. So the eventual configuration for the 21st century may not have looked all that different, as you say.

>>>>It is indeed a fascinating exercise to see how things would have turned out. If you think about it, the US is the only country we have discussed that would have been relatively unaffected by a different course in british history. They had the advantage of a huge landmass, sufficiently isolated from the old world and they were new, with a sparse population. The founding fathers were right in wanting to disentangle themselves from Britain.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:02 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>>It is indeed a fascinating exercise to see how things would have turned out. If you think about it, the US is the only country we have discussed that would have been relatively unaffected by a different course in british history. They had the advantage of a huge landmass, sufficiently isolated from the old world and they were new, with a sparse population. The founding fathers were right in wanting to disentangle themselves from Britain.

It is not easy for countries with an old civiliazation, that is distinct from the West. Such countries should invent their own system to progress instead of simply copying the western capitalism.

by Kris Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:47 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>>It is indeed a fascinating exercise to see how things would have turned out. If you think about it, the US is the only country we have discussed that would have been relatively unaffected by a different course in british history. They had the advantage of a huge landmass, sufficiently isolated from the old world and they were new, with a sparse population. The founding fathers were right in wanting to disentangle themselves from Britain.

It is not easy for countries with an old civiliazation, that is distinct from the West. Such countries should invent their own system to progress instead of simply copying the western capitalism.

>>>>The most important driver after the 1700's would have been the science/technologuy gap. The west made strides by leaps and bounds, which the old world would have needed to get caught up on. The type of government India had had would have influenced this.. how well or how poorly. It would have been a probabilities game and hence my original point: how things turned out was probably the best outcome for India, considering the other alternatives.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:00 pm

Kris wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>>It is indeed a fascinating exercise to see how things would have turned out. If you think about it, the US is the only country we have discussed that would have been relatively unaffected by a different course in british history. They had the advantage of a huge landmass, sufficiently isolated from the old world and they were new, with a sparse population. The founding fathers were right in wanting to disentangle themselves from Britain.

It is not easy for countries with an old civiliazation, that is distinct from the West. Such countries should invent their own system to progress instead of simply copying the western capitalism.

>>>>The most important driver after the 1700's would have been the science/technologuy gap. The west made strides by leaps and bounds, which the old world would have needed to get caught up on. The type of government India had had would have influenced this.. how well or how poorly. It would have been a probabilities game and hence my original point: how things turned out was probably the best outcome for India, considering the other alternatives.

the fact that an indigenous handicrafts industry had become established in India to the extent that 40% of Indians were working in it at one stage (before it was smashed by the British) suggests that an industrial revolution would have inevitably followed in India.

by Guest Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:15 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>>It is indeed a fascinating exercise to see how things would have turned out. If you think about it, the US is the only country we have discussed that would have been relatively unaffected by a different course in british history. They had the advantage of a huge landmass, sufficiently isolated from the old world and they were new, with a sparse population. The founding fathers were right in wanting to disentangle themselves from Britain.

It is not easy for countries with an old civiliazation, that is distinct from the West. Such countries should invent their own system to progress instead of simply copying the western capitalism.

>>>>The most important driver after the 1700's would have been the science/technologuy gap. The west made strides by leaps and bounds, which the old world would have needed to get caught up on. The type of government India had had would have influenced this.. how well or how poorly. It would have been a probabilities game and hence my original point: how things turned out was probably the best outcome for India, considering the other alternatives.

the fact that an indigenous handicrafts industry had become established in India to the extent that 40% of Indians were working in it at one stage (before it was smashed by the British) suggests that an industrial revolution would have inevitably followed in India.

India's role in the Industrial Revolution:

http://sulekha.forumotion.com/t74-india-s-role-in-the-industrial-revolution

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:56 am

classic thread. learnt a lot -- esp. about maratha rule in the yamuna, ganga doab. they never taught us about the valiant marathas in history in school. patchy historical lessons.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:02 am

received a note from a friend saying that the title of this thread is unnecessarily provocative. i agree, and apologize if i have inadvertently hurt anyone's sentiments through the title of this thread.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:05 am

Rashmun wrote:received a note from a friend saying that the title of this thread is unnecessarily provocative. i agree, and apologize if i have inadvertently hurt anyone's sentiments through the title of this thread.

no, it's ok. sometimes informative arguments do not unfold without some provocation. this is good provocation. good morning all -- HK

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:21 am

Kris wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>>It is indeed a fascinating exercise to see how things would have turned out. If you think about it, the US is the only country we have discussed that would have been relatively unaffected by a different course in british history. They had the advantage of a huge landmass, sufficiently isolated from the old world and they were new, with a sparse population. The founding fathers were right in wanting to disentangle themselves from Britain.

It is not easy for countries with an old civiliazation, that is distinct from the West. Such countries should invent their own system to progress instead of simply copying the western capitalism.

>>>>The most important driver after the 1700's would have been the science/technologuy gap. The west made strides by leaps and bounds, which the old world would have needed to get caught up on. The type of government India had had would have influenced this.. how well or how poorly. It would have been a probabilities game and hence my original point: how things turned out was probably the best outcome for India, considering the other alternatives.

I agree. The probability of arriving at a consolidated India was remote unless the rebellion of 1857 had resulted in a strong imperial force, perhaps Maratha-led, to impose peace on the land. Failing that, native rajas and nawabs would have seized upon the power vacuum and the region would have once again regressed into its feudal past and remained a patchwork of kingdoms scrapping endlessly over territory. The resultant fragmentation of markets would also have pushed back industrialization, leaving us a nation of artisans.

Sure, there would be individual instances of modern, enlightened rule - such as Travancore or Mysore - but by and large, the rulers would be a self-indulgent lot, least concerned about the people they ruled over (not very different from the actual outcome). That said, modern ideas would have eventually seeped through but the transition to democracy would have been a longer, more labored exercise. I have my doubts how effective a Gandhi would have been against a native raja or nawab as he was against the Brits. It would have take a true visionary to look at the political patchwork and then work towards a unified, consolidated India. And when it came, the nation would have been ill-prepared, with no railways, no unified civil services, no unified armed forces etc. On the other hand, there would have been no partition (making Muslims far more numerous in India, forcing Uppili to advance his curfew hours to 6pm instead of the current 8pm).

by Kris Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:31 am

Rashmun wrote:received a note from a friend saying that the title of this thread is unnecessarily provocative. i agree, and apologize if i have inadvertently hurt anyone's sentiments through the title of this thread.

>>>I don't find it provocative at all. It has just opened up in areas about 'what might have been' and to what extent history informs the future. With the information age, the past doesn't loom as large as it may have even a quarter century ago. I think we- at least the developed nations and those on the cusp- are galloping ahead at an accelerated pace. Interesting discussion.

by Kris Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:40 am

Rashmun wrote:
Kris wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>>It is indeed a fascinating exercise to see how things would have turned out. If you think about it, the US is the only country we have discussed that would have been relatively unaffected by a different course in british history. They had the advantage of a huge landmass, sufficiently isolated from the old world and they were new, with a sparse population. The founding fathers were right in wanting to disentangle themselves from Britain.

It is not easy for countries with an old civiliazation, that is distinct from the West. Such countries should invent their own system to progress instead of simply copying the western capitalism.

>>>>The most important driver after the 1700's would have been the science/technologuy gap. The west made strides by leaps and bounds, which the old world would have needed to get caught up on. The type of government India had had would have influenced this.. how well or how poorly. It would have been a probabilities game and hence my original point: how things turned out was probably the best outcome for India, considering the other alternatives.

the fact that an indigenous handicrafts industry had become established in India to the extent that 40% of Indians were working in it at one stage (before it was smashed by the British) suggests that an industrial revolution would have inevitably followed in India.

>>>> Valid point, but as Merlot says in his post, uniformity/consistency are a sine qua non for such revolutions to get traction and charge ahead. With multilpe kingdoms or for that matter, any kind of monarchy, all bets would have been off on this count. Again as MD says, the issue os not so much such a revolution would have seeped into India, but the pace would have been much slower.

by Guest Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:43 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The resultant fragmentation of markets would also have pushed back industrialization, leaving us a nation of artisans.

this is true. in the history of wootz steel, south india had become very industrialized in the manufacture of this steel. there were scores of sophisticated furnaces operating in the south (the ruins of which give us an indication) and all this steel was exported. with the cutting off of trade routes (no doubt partly attributable to hostile kingdoms in india), this industry (and technology!) died prematurely.

by Kayalvizhi Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:15 am

Kris >>>> In that context, yes that would be bad. Here's my question though: who is giving credence to these chest-thumpers or this issue anyway? With the multitude of problems, this may make for a feel-good movie or two, but I suspect this is a fringe isue at best..

Indian gov spent lots of mony ro celebrate 150 anniversary and spread Hindian supremacy.

Panini >>> am glad that you acknowledge that the Nizams and the Nawabs of Arcot were licking the boots of the British, and lived comfortable lives in return for that boot-licking.

One day history will say Karunanidis and the chithamparams were licking the boots of the Hindians, and lived comfortable lives in return for that boot-licking. It is the commander and the likes who kept freedom alive at great sacrifice

by Sponsored content